Hi, Elina & all --
Another view: Subject connotes a semiotic entity, and in semiotics, the term
"subject" carries baggage from linguistics, rather than experimental
psychology. The subject is a position in language; the speaking subject is
one who takes up the "I" position in language. The distinction to be made is
between the subject who is subjected to some linguistic/social formation and
the authorial (agentive) subject who (re)shapes what is possible....
That doesn't answer your questions about the subject of activity, and where
to locate agency from an AT perspective; Yrjo locates agency in the activity
system. This question seems to me open to exploration & reformulation...
Judy
-----Original Message-----
From: Sophie Alcock [mailto:Sophie.Alcock@vuw.ac.nz]
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 2:10 AM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: RE: request for some clarification
The question of agent versus subject of or in activity does raise
interesting other questions. The term, subject, does have some unfortunate
historical baggage, associated with the idea of "subjects" being
experimented on and "participants" sometimes sounds like a trite
alternative. In looking for the Boesch article, I did see one by Ratner
called "Agency and Culture" in the XMCA paper archives. It may be useful,
seems to reinforce the individualistic conception of agency though. The
Boesch one is fascinating; music being a refreshing change from words; the
subject-participant and object violin one in sound. One can't attribute
agency to the violin, I think, but...
Sophie
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 01 2003 - 01:00:08 PDT